Skip to main content
EURAXESS
NEWS14 Nov 2016News

How to apply for an (MSCA) post doc grant? Tips and tricks!

how_to_-_tutorial

First, check the eligibility and formal criteria!

 

Post doc grants usually fund only between 5 and 20 percent of applications, so they are happy when they can weed out applications before even sending them out to reviewers. Avoid being one of those that don’t even get feedback on their work by checking carefully whether you and your host institution are eligible and make sure you fulfil all formal criteria (number of pages or word limits, are

all sections and appendices there, is the font correct and not too small, etc).

For instance, to even be able to apply for a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship you need to be an “experienced researcher”, which is defined as being in possession of a doctoral degree or have at least four years of full-time equivalent research experience at the deadline for the submission of proposals. It sounds simple, but is very important and thus seems not to be considered enough.

 

Take the non-science parts very seriously!

If you look at how Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant proposals are evaluated, most of the points go to aspects of the proposal that have seemingly nothing to do with the science you want to do. There are many reasons for that, for example, if it is a training grant, then you should be sure to describe how the experience will help you grow as a scientist. They also want to make sure that the money is well spent by asking you to supply a lot of details about where you want to go and what kind of support you will receive there, both scientifically and in terms of admin, equipment, etc.

Here is a concrete example based on actual applicant's experience: “I applied unsuccessfully once before getting the grant. I got full points on the research parts but lost points on “Training” (note that this was still under the previous framework, thus the structure is slightly different now – elements of the previous “Training” part are now found both in “Excellence” and “Impact”).

The main negative feedback obtained was: (1) The proposal does not give full evidence of how the relevant training courses will be included in the candidate’s training plan. (2) The provision of training to develop the applicant’s complementary skills, such as project management, is not sufficiently detailed in the proposal.

While this might seem minor, these two points transformed the proposal from an A-ranking to not even a B-, but a C-ranking, which is one step from the worst!

As to (1): In the original proposal, several training activities were mentioned (learning new data acquisition and analysis techniques), but it was not explicitly said how that would benefit the applicant in the future. So in a second proposal, the same applicant basically just added one sentence to each of the skills, saying things like “This skill is crucial for my future research since knowing how to use technique A is the only way I will be able to assess X in infants”; “New skill B in combination with my old skill C will make me one of the pioneers of doing Y in Europe”.

As to (2), the applicant stated he would gain project management skills simply by executing his research project. Since he did not specifically say how he would gain project management skills he lost crucial points. So for on his second try, he described several task coordination scenarios that would come up during his project, for instance coordinating multiple home visits at babies’ homes, and linked that to the acquisition of project management skills.

And it worked!

 

Take time and ask for a lot of feedback!

A brilliant, succinct, and impactful research proposal, like most writing, is rarely churned out a week before the deadline. Do take time, among many benefits this allows you to look back after a week of doing something else (and that includes vacation, you deserve it) and spot inconsistencies, omissions, and generally things to be improved.

If you know people who previously applied for the same grant, ask them for feedback. Ideally, get also people on board who are not in your core research field, because the evaluators won’t be just from the small pool of your close colleagues. They often have a new perspective and will help you improve your proposal further, making it clear even for a non-expert.

There are also often dedicated grant advisors, either affiliated to foundations within your home or target country or at your current / future institution. They often also offer training sessions, and are usually happy to read your proposal with an eye on the formal aspects (see previous points, they matter a lot). In addition, when contacting a grant advisor from your target institution, they might be able to share previous successful proposals. Do look at them carefully, even if they come from organic chemistry and you care more about applied psychology. For example, details about the host institution can often be re-used.

Finally, try to exchange proposals with colleagues for self-evaluation, because there is no direct competition. The X best ones will be funded, but there is no problem giving 3 grants to one host institution in one round, and none in the year before or after. Someone who is in the same boat, knows the guidelines as well as you, and still possesses a fresh pair of eyes can be incredibly useful.

Finally, don’t despair when confronted with very confusing language and an obscure submission system! The text in the documents provided to applicants, especially this template describing the different subcategories that you are supposed to elaborate on, can be very opaque. Here, too, it can be extremely useful to talk to someone in the same boat and figure this all out together, and to ask some external grant advisor for additional feedback.

It might also take some time to get familiar with the submission system, do not postpone this bit to the last minute, either. Usually, right before the deadline is the busiest time for the system anyhow and it will be slow to react. So ideally have everything ready and just submit at once! Take your time, ask for advice, and don’t panic.

 

More info on MSCA:

 

About the Marie-Skłodowska Curie Actions Individual Fellowships

 

What is it?

 

Individual Fellowships belong to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) under Horizon 2020, the European Framework Programme for Research and Innovation.

 

Individual fellowships are either European Fellowships or Global Fellowships.

European Fellowships are an opportunity for Japanese researchers to work in research labs in Europe for up to two years. Global Fellowships offer the opportunity of Japan-based research institutions to host a European fellow.

 

What is the aim of MSCA-IF?

 

The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships aim at enhancing the creative and innovative potential of experienced researchers (postdocs) through advanced training and international and intersectoral mobility.

 

Who can apply?

 

European fellowships are awarded to the most promising researchers of any nationality who want to benefit from advanced training in Europe (mobility rules). The host organisation (academic or non academic) in Europe employs the awarded researcher. Applicants either hold a PhD degree or have at least four years of full-time equivalent research experience.

 

Why should I apply?

 

You can expand and strengthen your network and gain new expertise through advanced training and mobility.

 

How does it work?

 

Proposals are submitted jointly with a "host" organisation in Europe and you as the researcher. You, the researcher, develop the proposal in cooperation with a European organisation that would be willing to host you. Host organizations can be universities, research centres or companies.

 

How can I apply?

 

First, find the right call on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal here. Then, inform yourself and read the important documents (Guide for Applicants – here for 2016 - and Work Programme).

For questions, please contact japan[at]euraxess.net or the dedicated MSCA NCP in your target country.

 

When can I apply?

 

The next MSCA-IF call for proposals will open on 11 April 2017 with a deadline of 14 September 2017. More information here.

 

 

 

 

MSCA Post-doctoral Tutorial series